You didn't explain why you would want to migrate your shop to Linux in the first place. You even mention that the software you need is Windows-only stuff, but you want to make things complicated, difficult and expensive by running this Windows software on Linux virtual terminals instead of natively!
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
Staffing expenses were 33.5% better.
Training costs were 32.3% better.
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
$40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
$1.79 per peak request per second.
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
28.2% less for large enterprises.
25.0% less for medium organizations.
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Is nearly three hours faster.
Requires 77% fewer steps.
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
Has 63% better peak performance for dynamic content.
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more? Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
-- Copyright (c) 2006 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
OK, who's the moderator who mixed up "Funny" with "Insightful"?
"Work Account", you were right in the first paragraph, only to finish off your post with that utter nonsense.
LinuxOS is safe enough for experimenting hobbyists. It's not something you'd like to use as a webserver on the Internet.
Real world vs. fanboy fantasies:
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
Staffing expenses were 33.5% better.
Training costs were 32.3% better.
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
$40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
$1.79 per peak request per second.
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
28.2% less for large enterprises.
25.0% less for medium organizations.
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Is nearly three hours faster.
Requires 77% fewer steps.
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
Has 63% better peak performance for dynamic content.
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more? Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
-- Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
Addendum 2: See also this artist's impression of where the NOTLO NG institute think apes might end up on the evolutionary ladder in a forseeable future, should this observed trend prove to be stable.
The Register is smoking crack, and has probably misunderstood or deliberately misinterpreted Novell. The licence costs per se of upgrading to Vista (or any new version of most other proprietary operator systems) are neglible. If you're already running a Windows operation, it's absurd to consider switching to an inferior LinuxOS infrastructure instead of upgrading to Vista, or simply keeping the old Windows version you're already running.
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
Staffing expenses were 33.5% better.
Training costs were 32.3% better.
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
$40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
$1.79 per peak request per second.
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
28.2% less for large enterprises.
25.0% less for medium organizations.
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Is nearly three hours faster.
Requires 77% fewer steps.
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
Has 63% better peak performance for dynamic content.
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more? Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
-- Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
It is absurd to think if Thorwaldes after 19 years of Linux development still hasn't got something fundamental as PCI to work properly, that he will have gotten it right this time.
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
Staffing expenses were 33.5% better.
Training costs were 32.3% better.
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
$40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
$1.79 per peak request per second.
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
28.2% less for large enterprises.
25.0% less for medium organizations.
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Is nearly three hours faster.
Requires 77% fewer steps.
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
Has 63% better peak performance for dynamic content.
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more? Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
-- Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
Staffing expenses were 33.5% better.
Training costs were 32.3% better.
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
$40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
$1.79 per peak request per second.
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
28.2% less for large enterprises.
25.0% less for medium organizations.
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Is nearly three hours faster.
Requires 77% fewer steps.
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
Has 63% better peak performance for dynamic content.
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more? Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
-- Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
Real world vs. fanboy fantasies
on
Grokking Knoppix
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
I already know the LinuxOS, and so does the rest of the industry. That knowledge is the reason why LinuxOS is not accepted anywhere where it counts.
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
Staffing expenses were 33.5% better.
Training costs were 32.3% better.
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
$40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
$1.79 per peak request per second.
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
28.2% less for large enterprises.
25.0% less for medium organizations.
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Is nearly three hours faster.
Requires 77% fewer steps.
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
Has 63% better peak performance for dynamic content.
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more? Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
-- Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan, Amiga community representative
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
While it's nice of Microsoft to show responsibility and acknowledge lesser alternatives occasionally, these OSS (open sores solutions) have always failed and will always fail miserably when competing with CSS (closed sores solutions). It lies inherently in the concept. Just look at the failure of LinuxOS.
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
Staffing expenses were 33.5% better.
Training costs were 32.3% better.
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
$40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
$1.79 per peak request per second.
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
28.2% less for large enterprises.
25.0% less for medium organizations.
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Is nearly three hours faster.
Requires 77% fewer steps.
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
Has 63% better peak performance for dynamic content.
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more? Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
-- Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan, Amiga community representative
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
Real world vs. fanboy fantasies
on
GIMP 2.2 Released
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
Why announce this now, when only LinuxOS binaries are available?
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
Staffing expenses were 33.5% better.
Training costs were 32.3% better.
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
$40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
$1.79 per peak request per second.
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
28.2% less for large enterprises.
25.0% less for medium organizations.
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Is nearly three hours faster.
Requires 77% fewer steps.
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
Has 63% better peak performance for dynamic content.
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more? Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
-- Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan, Amiga community representative
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
Staffing expenses were 33.5% better.
Training costs were 32.3% better.
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
$40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
$1.79 per peak request per second.
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
28.2% less for large enterprises.
25.0% less for medium organizations.
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Is nearly three hours faster.
Requires 77% fewer steps.
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
Has 63% better peak performance for dynamic content.
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more? Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
-- Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan, Amiga community representative
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
It might be tempting to believe that a "free" Operator System could cut expenses. Cold, hard figures say differently.
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
Staffing expenses were 33.5% better.
Training costs were 32.3% better.
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
$40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
$1.79 per peak request per second.
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
28.2% less for large enterprises.
25.0% less for medium organizations.
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Is nearly three hours faster.
Requires 77% fewer steps.
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
Has 63% better peak performance for dynamic content.
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more? Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
-- Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
The Experience of Hans and Else with a Strange Man
Else begins to have plenty of sweets.
Hans asks from where they are coming.
"I have got them from a strange man. But don't tell mother! The man strictly forbade me to do so!"
Hans is curious. They arrange to go together. The "man" wants them to go with him.
Hans hesitates -- Hans thought:
'What does the man want of us? Why should we go with him?'
Suddenly a great fear comes over him.
"You are a Jew!" he cries and seizing his sister, runs off as fast as his legs will carry him. At the corner of the street he meets a policeman. Quickly Hans tells his story. The policeman gets on his motor-bike and soon overtakes the strange man. He handcuffs him and takes him to prison.
At home, subsequently, there is great rejoicing. The police praise Hans for being a brave lad. His mother gives him a large piece of chocolate while teaching him the following saying:
"A devil goes through the land, The Jew he is, known to us all As murderer of the peoples and polluter of the races, The terror of children in every country!
He wants to ruin the youth. He wants all peoples to die. Have nothing to do with a Jew Then you'll be happy and gay!"
I simply cannot fathom why some of you fanboys think a respected company like Real Audio, Inc. would lower itself to support fringe interests like MAC users or Linux/OS users!
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
Staffing expenses were 33.5% better.
Training costs were 32.3% better.
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
$40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
$1.79 per peak request per second.
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
28.2% less for large enterprises.
25.0% less for medium organizations.
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Is nearly three hours faster.
Requires 77% fewer steps.
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
Has 63% better peak performance for dynamic content.
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more? Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
-- Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
I suppose this will have the GNOO/LinuxOS fanboys frothing at the mouth, SPF being yet another consumer protection invention by Microsoft and all.
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
Staffing expenses were 33.5% better.
Training costs were 32.3% better.
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
$40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
$1.79 per peak request per second.
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
28.2% less for large enterprises.
25.0% less for medium organizations.
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Is nearly three hours faster.
Requires 77% fewer steps.
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
Has 63% better peak performance for dynamic content.
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more? Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
-- Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
For the record, I did not submit the parent comment. Thank you.
-- Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
I can't understand why HP waste resources on the open sores software. Nobody important in the industry is impressed or even interested.
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
Staffing expenses were 33.5% better.
Training costs were 32.3% better.
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
$40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
$1.79 per peak request per second.
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
28.2% less for large enterprises.
25.0% less for medium organizations.
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Is nearly three hours faster.
Requires 77% fewer steps.
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
Has 63% better peak performance for dynamic content.
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more? Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
-- Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
While pricing matters, I don't think it can save LinuxOS.
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
Staffing expenses were 33.5% better.
Training costs were 32.3% better.
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
$40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
$1.79 per peak request per second.
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
28.2% less for large enterprises.
25.0% less for medium organizations.
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Is nearly three hours faster.
Requires 77% fewer steps.
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
Has 63% better peak performance for dynamic content.
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more? Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
-- Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
Keep dreaming, but LinuxOS has no place on the corporate desktop, not even if you try to emulate Windows with the Xardos patch. GOME failed, KED failed, why should this succeed? There's no innovation.
Even if the Windows desktop is both stylish and functional, you need more than that to succeed in the corporate world. I will now list a few facts and figures for you all to ponder.
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
Staffing expenses were 33.5% better.
Training costs were 32.3% better.
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
$40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
$1.79 per peak request per second.
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
28.2% less for large enterprises.
25.0% less for medium organizations.
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Is nearly three hours faster.
Requires 77% fewer steps.
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
Has 63% better peak performance for dynamic content.
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more? Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
-- Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
But you're right about WMA. It's the industry standard, so it would be counterproductive to use any of the alternatives which are all substandard. Microsoft has spent millions to develop WMA for the world to enjoy, so not using it is basically theft. How would you feel if you had spent time and money on creating something wonderful for everyone, and some people insisted on stealing from you by using something worse?
-- Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
I'm flattered by your usage of my "Real world vs. fanboy fantasies" troll (you're the first adopter I've seen), but DO NOT CHANGE MY NAME AND COPYRIGHT NOTICE!
Thank you, and I wish you many successfully hooked suckers with my little creation. -- Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
Only clueless fanboys would give a damn about under which license their drivers are distributed. As long as they do what they're supposed, so what?
This is different from something meaningful, like Microsoft's excellent WHLQ certification. I'm surprised that no other vendor, including LinuxOS Inc., has copied the idea of certified drivers yet. Microsoft has taken the initiative to take responsibility, this is something that the GPG/Linux community needs to copy.
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
Staffing expenses were 33.5% better.
Training costs were 32.3% better.
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
$40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
$1.79 per peak request per second.
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
28.2% less for large enterprises.
25.0% less for medium organizations.
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Is nearly three hours faster.
Requires 77% fewer steps.
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
Has 63% better peak performance for dynamic content.
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more? Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
-- Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
To do the "cherry-picking" of which Thorwaldes speaks, there has to be cherrys to pick. LinuxOS is a barren cherry tree.
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
Staffing expenses were 33.5% better.
Training costs were 32.3% better.
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
$40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
$1.79 per peak request per second.
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
28.2% less for large enterprises.
25.0% less for medium organizations.
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Is nearly three hours faster.
Requires 77% fewer steps.
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
Has 63% better peak performance for dynamic content.
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more? Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwalds who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
-- Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
Staffing expenses were 33.5% better.
Training costs were 32.3% better.
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
$40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
$1.79 per peak request per second.
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
28.2% less for large enterprises.
25.0% less for medium organizations.
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Is nearly three hours faster.
Requires 77% fewer steps.
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
Has 63% better peak performance for dynamic content.
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more? Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwalds who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
-- Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
Staffing expenses were 33.5% better.
Training costs were 32.3% better.
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
$40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
$1.79 per peak request per second.
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
28.2% less for large enterprises.
25.0% less for medium organizations.
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Is nearly three hours faster.
Requires 77% fewer steps.
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
Has 63% better peak performance for dynamic content.
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more? Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwalds who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
-- Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
Staffing expenses were 33.5% better.
Training costs were 32.3% better.
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
$40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
$1.79 per peak request per second.
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
28.2% less for large enterprises.
25.0% less for medium organizations.
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Is nearly three hours faster.
Requires 77% fewer steps.
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
Has 63% better peak performance for dynamic content.
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more? Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwalds who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
-- Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
Slashdot Mirror
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more?
Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
--
Copyright (c) 2006 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
OK, who's the moderator who mixed up "Funny" with "Insightful"?
"Work Account", you were right in the first paragraph, only to finish off your post with that utter nonsense.
LinuxOS is safe enough for experimenting hobbyists. It's not something you'd like to use as a webserver on the Internet.
Real world vs. fanboy fantasies:
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more?
Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
Addendum 2: See also this artist's impression of where the NOTLO NG institute think apes might end up on the evolutionary ladder in a forseeable future, should this observed trend prove to be stable.
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more?
Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more?
Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more?
Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more?
Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan, Amiga community representative
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more?
Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan, Amiga community representative
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more?
Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan, Amiga community representative
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more?
Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan, Amiga community representative
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more?
Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
The Experience of Hans and Else with a Strange Man
Else begins to have plenty of sweets.
Hans asks from where they are coming.
"I have got them from a strange man. But don't tell mother! The man strictly forbade me to do so!"
Hans is curious. They arrange to go together. The "man" wants them to go with him.
Hans hesitates -- Hans thought:
'What does the man want of us? Why should we go with him?'
Suddenly a great fear comes over him.
"You are a Jew!" he cries and seizing his sister, runs off as fast as his legs will carry him. At the corner of the street he meets a policeman. Quickly Hans tells his story. The policeman gets on his motor-bike and soon overtakes the strange man. He handcuffs him and takes him to prison.
At home, subsequently, there is great rejoicing. The police praise Hans for being a brave lad. His mother gives him a large piece of chocolate while teaching him the following saying:
"A devil goes through the land,
The Jew he is, known to us all
As murderer of the peoples and polluter of the races,
The terror of children in every country!
He wants to ruin the youth.
He wants all peoples to die.
Have nothing to do with a Jew
Then you'll be happy and gay!"
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more?
Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more?
Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
For the record, I did not submit the parent comment. Thank you.
--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more?
Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more?
Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
Even if the Windows desktop is both stylish and functional, you need more than that to succeed in the corporate world. I will now list a few facts and figures for you all to ponder.
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more?
Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
That's MY copyrighted sig! Do NOT change my name!
But you're right about WMA. It's the industry standard, so it would be counterproductive to use any of the alternatives which are all substandard. Microsoft has spent millions to develop WMA for the world to enjoy, so not using it is basically theft. How would you feel if you had spent time and money on creating something wonderful for everyone, and some people insisted on stealing from you by using something worse?
--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
I'm flattered by your usage of my "Real world vs. fanboy fantasies" troll (you're the first adopter I've seen), but DO NOT CHANGE MY NAME AND COPYRIGHT NOTICE!
Thank you, and I wish you many successfully hooked suckers with my little creation.
--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
This is different from something meaningful, like Microsoft's excellent WHLQ certification. I'm surprised that no other vendor, including LinuxOS Inc., has copied the idea of certified drivers yet. Microsoft has taken the initiative to take responsibility, this is something that the GPG/Linux community needs to copy.
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more?
Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more?
Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwalds who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more?
Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwalds who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more?
Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwalds who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more?
Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwalds who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".